Contestantion Question1.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Public debates Table of Content Name of the questioneer Page 1 Duminicioiu Ramona 1 2 Memet Denis 3 3 Cornea Eugen 6 4 Gruber Gheorghe 10 5 Chifan Andreea 18 6 Bâlici Ştefan 21 7 Husti Răduleţ Laura 24 8 Zmeskal Zita 25 9 Kappel Iudit 30 10 Dóci Gabriella 31 11 Gomboş Vasile Raul 34 12 Andreica Dionisie 37 13 Caproş Călin 40 14 David Eugen 43 15 Cosma Gheorghe 46 16 Furdui Dorin 49 17 Pencea Roxana 50 18 Brădaţan Tudor 52 19 Kaproş Liliana 54 20 Simion Ştefania 58 21 Niţă Daniel 61 22 Sima Iacob 62 23 Roth Stephanie 67 24 Jurcă Andrei 69 25 Cosma Ştefan 72 26 Mera Vlad 74 27 Andreica Lucian 77 28 Bobar Dumitru 83 29 Mateş Marcel 91 30 Cornea Călin 97 31 Nicula Călin 98 32 Cosma Gheorghe 104 33 Tutuianu Crenguţa 107 34 Bud Laura 110 35 Uţiu Ioan 118 36 Blăjan Marcu 125 37 Mera Dan Andrei 128 38 Goia Liana 131 39 Dumitraş Ioan 135 40 Napău Cornel 143 41 Armeana Gheorghe 149 42 David Viorel 156 43 Danciu Radu 161 44 Cosma Gheorghe 163 Name of the questioneer Page 45 Oprişa Ştefan 164 46 Mignea Iosif Dorin 167 47 Cosma Gheorghe 175 48 Goia Ileana 181 49 Mateiu Augusta 185 50 Jurca Andrei 188 51 Moraru 191 52 Vesa Tudor 199 53 Liliana Mursă 204 Item no. 1 Stakeholder Duminicioiu Ramona name Stakeholder Cluj Napoca, Str. Gorunului, Nr. 2, 55 address In regards to the meeting: the debate is addressed to the public, therefore the authorities should not address observations. She expresses her disagreement regarding the presentation held by RMGC: - issues related to the location of Piatra Alba - incorrect, they are just promises. There isn't any infrastructure in the area, therefore it shouldn't have been presented within the public debate Question/ for the PUZ Comment - the implementation of the PUZ doesn't create the jobs that have been presented - she expressed her disagreement regarding the presentations made for the infrastructure. Rosia Montana doesn't have infrastructure due to the fact that the investments were blocked by the previously approved PUZ; also, any other type of alternative investments in the area were blocked by the Project. In relation to the rules applicable to public debates, we hereby mention that, in compliance with the provisions of Article 31, paragraph (1), item 5 of the Governmental Decision no. 1076/2004 on establishing the procedure for conducting the environmental assessment for plans and programs, the competent authority for environmental protection has the responsibility to chair the public debate, to record the justified proposals submitted by the public and authorities [...] and to make the public debate’s report. Therefore, as long as the competent authority has the right to chair the public debates, it also has the right to take the floor during the public debates, inclusive in relation to issues which could help an exhaustive clarification of certain aspects which might have a certain importance for the environmental permit issuance process. Annex 2 of the GD 1076/2004 “Standard content for the environmental report”, item 1, stipulates the following: “presentation of the content and key objectives of the plan or program, as well as how these relate to other relevant plans and programs”. The relevance of this plan results from the fact that the population is an important factor for the environment assessment review. Annex 2 of the GD 1076/2004 “Standard content for environmental report” item 6, stipulates the Answer following: the potential impact must include the side effects, cumulative, synergic on short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative impact. Jobs creation is one such effect generated by the implementation of the plan. RMGC Project needs an area of 1054 ha from the area of Roşia Montană communa, which has 4200 ha, thus representing approx. 25 %. The condition of the infrastructure is precarious all over Roşia Montană administrative territory. The statement that RMGC contributed to the blockage of other investments is unsubstantiated. Roşia Montană communa is made of 16 villages. Currently, Roşia Montană Industrial Zone covers only 25% of this territory, so that only 4 villages are impacted by the proposed mining activities of the Project initiated by S.C. Roşia Montană Gold Corporation S.A. (RMGC). Due to the fact that only mining works took place within this area in the past, this area never had farms or other activities besides industrial functions. Regarding the majority of the land in Rosia Montana communa, located outside the mining perimeter (75%), we would like to mention that the functions allowed to develop in these areas are multiple and are not, in any way, precluded by the mining project proposed by RMGC. Page of answer 1 of 2 Pagina 1 din 206 Also, please note that there are legal imperative provisions which restrain the development of other projects than those aimed for the mining and processing of natural resources for the areas where these were identified. These legal provisions include: • Article 41(2) of the Mining Law no. 85/2003 ”county councils and local councils will amend and / or update the existing territory arrangement plans and the general urbanism plans for allowing all necessary leased mining works to develop”; • Article 6(1) of the Governmental Decision no. 525/1996 republished in November 11th, 2002, for the approval of the General Urbanism Regulations („GD no. 525/1996”) ”the permitting of definitive constructions, other than industrial constructions, required for the mining and processing of the resources from the areas identified according to the law, which contain proved underground resources, is banned”; • Article 4.4. of the Urbanism Local Regulations of Rosia Montana communa, related to the General Urbanism Plan of 2002,” the permitting of definitive constructions, other than industrial constructions, required for the mining and processing of the resources from the areas identified according to the law, which contain proved underground resources, is banned”. Consequently, you are kindly asked to take into consideration that the legal provisions mentioned above have an imperative character and are applicable to any similar project, developed by public and/or private entities. Page of answer 2 of 2 Pagina 2 din 206 Item no. 2 Stakeholder Memet Denis name Stakeholder Sibiu, Str. Dimitrie Cantemir, Nr. 56 address Regarding the presentation of the plan: - there was no presentation made for the environment rehabilitation prior to implementing the Plan (the previous mines which are owned by the State) and afterwards; there is only a mention regarding the existing plan for the rehabilitation of the area, managed by the Romanian Question/ State but this wasn't presented Comment - the Project creates a precedent for other similar approaches; it requires extra care; the topics are presented in numbers - the titleholder must stick to these numbers - transboundary impact - important to take into consideration As it was already mentioned in the Environmental Report for the Amendment of Zonal Urbanism Plan for the development of the industrial zone, Chapter 2, p. 19-20, Rosia Montana mine, operated by C.N.C.A.F. MINVEST S.A. Deva – Roşiamin S.A. Roşia Montană branch, closed its activity in May 15th, 2006. The closure of the activity was due, mostly, to the commitment of Romania for adhering to EU referring to the fact of not allowing anymore the operation of mines subsidized from the budget of the State. In accordance with the requirements of the Mining Law, there was issued a plan for closing down the activity; this plan stipulates the dismounting of the equipment and facilities, as well as the rehabilitation of the damages caused to the environment during the whole life of the operation. These obligations rest with C.N.C.A.F. MINVEST S.A. Deva (according to the Additional Deed no. 3/14.10.2000 to the Lease mining license no. 47/21.12.1998, transferred through Order of the National Agency for Mineral Resources no. 310/09.10.2000 from C.N.C.A.F. MINVEST S.A. Deva which becomes affiliated company, over to S.C. Roşia Montană Gold Corporation S.A. which becomes the Owning company). Alba Environment Protection Agency issued the environmental permit for the Closure Plan. The Plan was endorsed by the Ministry of Economy and Trade, as well as by the Alba Territorial Inspection for Mineral Resources. The Ministry of Economy and Trade transmitted the Plan to the National Agency for Mineral Resources which will make the decision in relation to the closure Answer of the mine. The funds necessary for implementing the plan will have to be supplied from the State Budget, on the grounds of a Decision of Romania Government. For this purpose, the Government of Romania approved the Decision no. 644 of June 20th, 2007, published in the Official Gazette, Part I, issue no. 469 of July 12th, 2007 regarding the approval for definitive closure and post closure environment monitoring of some mines and pits, the tenth phase, and amendment of some laws in the field of mine and pit closure, which stipulate the amount of 98 701 298 lei for the closure of Rosia Montana mine, 5 823 868 lei for its annual preservation and 1 689 630 lei for post closure monitoring. It is provided that, should Roşia Montană mining project is going to be implemented, the closure and environment damages removal works for the objectives located within the industrial zone, will be the responsibility of this Project; the Budget funds will be used only for the objectives located outside this area. The project included in the zonal urbanism plan has clear provisions referring to the closure works and removal of the environment damages generated by the previous mining works within the industrial zone.